Natural Gas and Climate Change


Published on

An extensive review of the potential global warming impacts of switching U.S. power generation from coal to natural gas.

Published in: News & Politics, Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Natural Gas and Climate Change

  1. 1. Eric D. Larson, PhDNatural Gas& Climate Change
  2. 2. Natural Gas& Climate ChangeEric D. Larson, PhDClimate Centralresearch on climate change and informs the public ofreport on climate science, energy, sea level rise,Climate Centralresearch on climate science; energy; impacts suchinvestigate and synthesize weather and climate dataPrincetonOne Palmer Square, Suite 330Princeton, NJ 08542Phone: +1 609 924-3800Call Toll Free+1 877 4-CLI-SCI (877 425-4724)
  3. 3. Senior ScientistCentral while also being part of the research facultyresearch interests include engineering, economic, andReportAuthor
  4. 4. ContentsKey Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1Report in Brief . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10. . . . 212.1 Gas Production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 242.2 Gas Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 252.3 GasTransmission and Storage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 252.4 Gas Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26. . 283.1 Leakage During Gas Production, Processing, andTransmission.. . ......... 293.2 Leakage from Gas Distribution Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
  5. 5. Natural Gas and Climate Change l 1Key FindingsKnowing how much methane is leaking from the natural gas system is essential to determining the potential climatethree factors:The methane leak rate from the natural gas system;gas is 12 2over 1Climate Central has developed an interactive graphic incorporating all three factorspower plants, for over 117 percent1pollution than continued coal use after 1
  6. 6. Natural Gas and Climate Change l 2of coal plants are converted to natural gas, a new wave of highly potent methane leaks into the atmosphere and then11the natural gas supply system, from less than 1level,studies have reported methane leak rates as high as 1 12 annual greenhouse gas emissions1to 1Determining methane leakage is complicated by various uncertainties:-80%-60%-40%-20%no coalreplacement20% switch to naturalgas a disadvantageswitch to naturalgas an advantage2010 4030 6050 8070 10090It will be Decades Before Switching to Natural Gas FromCoal Power Brings a 50 Percent Reduction in Emissions2050coal-to-gasconversion rate:2.5% per year5.0% per year8% methane leakage5% methane leakage2% methane leakageEmissionsReductionFromSwitchtoNaturalGasYears From Today
  7. 7. Natural Gas and Climate Change l 3have been relatively few measurements of vented gas volumes, and estimating an average amount ofThere are orders of magnitude in variability of estimates of how much gas will ultimately be recoveredwell, which introduces uncertainty in estimating the percentage of gas leaked over the life of anThe leak integrity of the large and diverse gas distribution infrastructure:thousands of metering and regulating stations operating under varying gas pressures and other
  8. 8. Natural Gas and Climate Change l 4Report in Brief119 percent of all electricity12, and anymethane leakage in perspective:Depending on the rate of methane leakage,how much more climate friendly is natural1 11Production Processing Transmission DistributionFigure 1. The four stages of the U.S. natural gas supply system.
  9. 9. Natural Gas and Climate Change l 5The large uncertainties in leakage estimates arise from the sheer size and diversity of the gas supply system and aGas Production21 1111The average methane leakage rate for gas production from hydraulically fractured shale wells estimated in different
  10. 10. Natural Gas and Climate Change l 6Gas Processing2and other contaminants at unacceptably1996 reported measuredleak rates from more than 1compressors and engines at gas processing plants, on the basis of which representative daily leakage rates were2that originated in the natural gas is separated from the gas during processing and vented to the1among the four stages in the natural gas supply system, so uncertainties in gas processing estimates are of lessGasTransmissionof varying types, more than 1Because the number of compressors and engines in the transmission system are relatively well documented and1seasonal movements of gas in and out of storage reservoirs was not considered when measurements were made, andGas Distribution11996 study mentioned earlier, and nearly
  11. 11. Natural Gas and Climate Change l 71Natural Gas System Leakage inTotal and Implications for Electricity Generationgeneration, leakage from the production, processing, and transmission stages are important to consider, since nearly11percent for conventional gas and from 11the global warming impact of methane leaks and the related fact that the potency of methane as a greenhouse gas is21212, we estimated11
  12. 12. Natural Gas and Climate Change l 8methane leakage associated with each new increment of gas electricity has a warming potency that is initially very high17 or 4111coal use would be only 12capture and storage to provideFigure 2. Impact on global warming of shifting existing coal generated electricity to natural gas over time relative to maintaining existing coalgeneration at current level.The impacts are calculated for two different annual coal-to-gas substitution rates and for three assumed methaneleakage rates.-80%-60%-40%-20%no coalreplacement20% switch to naturalgas a disadvantageswitch to naturalgas an advantage2010 4030 6050 8070 10090It will be Decades Before Switching to Natural Gas FromCoal Power Brings a 50 Percent Reduction in Emissions2050coal-to-gasconversion rate:2.5% per year5.0% per year8% methane leakage5% methane leakage2% methane leakageEmissionsReductionFromSwitchtoNaturalGasYears From Today
  13. 13. Natural Gas and Climate Change l 91. IntroductionNatural gas is the second most abundant fossilThe estimates of the total amount of naturalthe past decade with the discovery of new forms ofunconventional gas,which refers broadly to gas residingcarbonate, and coal formations can all trap natural4The production of shale gas,the most recently discovered unconventional gas, isain the decades ahead, along with total gas productiongrowth in shale gas and this has dramatically increased6generation is widely thought to be an important way to2emitted intothe atmosphere, because combustion of natural gas by2than the combustioninto electricity than coal, resulting in an even largernatural gas has a clear greenhouse gas emissionsalso be considered to get an accurate picture of the fullgreenhouse emissions impact of natural gas comparedconsidered together are often called the lifecycleaHorizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing are also applied to produce gas from some tight sandstone and tight carbonate formations.A key distinctionbetween the term tight gas and shale gas is that the latter is gas that formed and is stored in the shale formation, whereas the former formed externalto the formation and migrated into it over time (millions of years).4Table 1. Number of years that estimated recoverable resources of natural gas, petroleum, and coal would lastif each are used at the rate that they were consumed in 2011.*Years left at 2011 rate of useConventional Natural GasUnconventional Natural GasPetroleumCoal11610211712475424936140* Calculated as the average of estimated reserves plus resources from Rogner,et al1, divided by total global use ofgas,petroleum,or coal in 2011 from BP.2The consumption rates in 2011 were 122 exajoules for gas,170 exajoulesfor oil, and 156 exajoules for coal. One exajoule is 1018joules, or approximately 1 quadrillion BTU (one quad).** Including Alaska. Calculated from resource estimates and consumption data of EIA. 3
  14. 14. Natural Gas and Climate Change l 10Figure 3. Number of gas wells drilled per month in the U.S. 5Figure 4. Past and projected U.S. natural gas production (in trillion cubic feet per year).A trillion cubic feet of natural gascontains about one quadrillion BTU (quad), or equivalently about 1 exajoule (EJ) of energy. Source: EIA.7
  15. 15. Natural Gas and Climate Change l 11Figure 5. Unlike other sectors, natural gas for electricity generation has been growing since around 1990 and is now the single largest user ofnatural gas.This graph shows gas use (in million cubic feet per year) by different sectors. Lease, plant, and pipeline fuel refers to natural gasconsumed by equipment used to produce and deliver gas to users, such as natural gas engines that drive pipeline compressors. Source: EIA.Burning Natural Gas Produces Much Less CO2Than Burning CoalFigure 6. Average emissions by fuel type from combustion of fossil fuels in the U.S. in 2011:7average emissions per million BTU (higherheating value) of fuel consumed (left) and average emissions per kWh of electricity generated (right).
  16. 16. Natural Gas and Climate Change l 12The recent and dramatic appearance of shalewhether or not lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions fornatural gas are as favorable as suggested by the simple42,so small leaksfrom the natural gas system can have outsized impactsmethane leakage and other greenhouse gas emissionsnatural gas supply system includes production of raw gas,processing of the raw gas to make it suitable for pipelineliterally thousands of places where leaks of methaneincluded more than half a million producing wells,severalthan a million miles of local distribution mains, andmethane leak rates for the global warming impact ofFigure 7. The U.S. natural gas supply system.8Each Stage in the Natural Gas Supply System is aVast Infrastructure
  17. 17. Natural Gas and Climate Change l 13Figure 8. U.S. natural gas processing plants. 9Figure 9.The U.S. natural gas transmission system (as of 2009). 10There are Hundreds of Natural Gas Processing Plants in the CountryHundreds ofThousands of Miles of GasTransmission Pipelines Cover the U.S.
  18. 18. Natural Gas and Climate Change l 14Figure 10. U.S. natural gas storage facilities. 11Natural Gas Storage Facilities Exist Across the Country
  19. 19. Natural Gas and Climate Change l 15Box 1: Shale Gas4Theproduction of some water with shale gas from these formations, a complication not present for most wells in otherFigure 11. Shale gas formations in the lower-48 states. 12
  20. 20. Natural Gas and Climate Change l 16Table 2. Mean estimate by the U.S. Geological Survey of undiscovered technically recoverable shale gas resources by basin. 13Gulf CoastHaynesville SabineEagle FordMaverick Basin PearsallMid-Bossier SabineInterior MarcelllusNorthwestern OhioWestern Margin MarcellusDevonianFoldbelt MarcellusShublickBrookianDelaware-Pecos Basins BarnettDelaware-Pecos Basins WoodfordMidland Basin Woodword-BarnettWoodfordFayetteville-High Gamma Ray DepocenterFayetteville Western ArkansasChattanoogaCaneyGreater Newark East Frac-BarrierExtended Continuous BarnettWoodfordThirteen Finger Limestone-AtokaGothic, Chimney Rock, HovenweepCane CreekTotalTrillion cubic feet*60.73450.2198.8175.12681.3742.6542.0591.2940.76538.4052.18417.20315.1052.82210.6789.0704.1701.6171.13514.65911.57015.9736.8506.4904.530* One trillion cubic feet of gas contains about one quadrillion BTU (one quad).
  21. 21. Natural Gas and Climate Change l 17but only with the development of hydraulic fracturingproduction, the proppant stays behind and keeps the“Fracking” was originally developed for use in verticallydrilled wells, but shale gas production only began inearnest with the development of horizontal drilling,which when combined with fracking, enables accessto much more of the volume of the thin, but laterallyhorizontal holes are typically drilled from a single wellpad, reducing overall drilling costs and enabling accessto much more of a shale formation from a small area onFigure 13. Hydraulic fracturing combined with horizontal drillingallows accessing more of a thin shale formation.Figure 12. Shale gas production in the U.S. has grown rapidly. 14Seven States Accounted for 90 Percent of Shale Gas Production in 2011*Not to scale
  22. 22. Natural Gas and Climate Change l 18Box 2: The Global Warming Potential of Methane2 4222, according to the22molecule in the atmosphere4 2 4depends on the time period over which thebut2suggest that varying time frames for
  23. 23. Natural Gas and Climate Change l 19Table 3. The global warming potential for methane falls as the time horizon for its evaluation grows.15A 20-year GWP of 72 for methanemeans that 1 kilogram of methane gas in the atmosphere will cause the equivalent warming of 72 kilograms of CO2over a 20 year period.The GWP values here are consistent with those shown in Figure 14.Figure 14. The global warming potential (GWP) of methane relative to CO2for a pulse emission at time zero.This assumes a characteristiclifetime in the atmosphere of 12 years for methane and a lifetime for CO2as predicted by the Bern carbon cycle model.15(See Alvarez et al.18)20-year GWP 100-year GWP 500-year GWPGWP of CH4(methane) 72 25 7.6
  24. 24. Natural Gas and Climate Change l 202. EPA Estimates of GHGEmissions from the NaturalGas Supply System,2b2Methane leakage from the natural gas supplysystem also contributesc2leaks in the natural gas supply system accounting for2d2corresponding to an estimated methane leakage rateinvolved in estimating the national methane leakagewide variety of data sources and by applying a multitudeFigure 15. U.S. greenhouse gas emissions as estimated by the Environmental Protection Agency.21bThe EPA inventories use 100-year global warming potentials (GWPs) for non-CO2gases taken from the Third Assessment Report (1996) of theIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), not from the most recent (2007) IPCC Assessment.The methane GWP value used by EPA inthis inventory is 21. See Box 2 for discussion of GWP.cSome naturally-occurring underground CO2is also vented to the atmosphere in the course of producing, processing, and transporting natural gas.EPA estimates these are much less one-tenth of one percent of the CO2-equivalent emissions of methane.23dU.S. natural gas consumption in 2010 was 24.1 trillion standard cubic feet according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. Assuming themethane fraction in this gas was 93.4 percent,the value assumed by EPA in its emissions inventory,23and taking into account the fact that one standardcubic foot (scf) of methane contains 20.23 grams (or 20.23 metric tons per million scf), the total methane consumed (as natural gas) was 455 millionmetric tons. Considering a GWP of 21 for methane (as the EPA does), this is 9,556 million metric tons of CO2-equivalent.The ratio of 215 (Table4) to 9,556 gives a leakage estimate of 2.25 percent of methane consumed.The leakage as a fraction of methane extracted from the ground isL = 1 - where x is the leakage expressed as a fraction of methane consumption. For x = 0.0225, or L = 0.0220, or 2.2%.1(1 + x)Methane was an Estimated 10 Percent of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions in 2010
  25. 25. Natural Gas and Climate Change l 21Figure 16. U.S. methane emissions in 2010 (in million metric tons of CO2equivalents) as estimated by the EnvironmentalProtection Agency.21Table 4. EPA estimates of methane emissions in 2010 from the natural gas system in units of million metric tons of CO2-equivalent (for amethane GWP of 21). Figures are from the 201222inventory and the 2013 inventory.20Liquids unloadingPneumatic device ventsGas enginesShallow water gas platformsCompletions and workovers with hydraulic fracturingOther production sourcesReciprocating compressorsCentrifugal compressors (wet seals)Gas enginesOther processing sourcesCentrifugal compressors (wet seals) (transmission)Reciprocating compressors (transmission)Engines (transmission)Reciprocating compressors (storage)Other transmission and storage sourcesNatural Gas DistributionMeter/regulator (at city gates)Leaks from main distribution pipelinesLeaks from service pipelines connected mains and users’ metersOther distribution sources2012 Inventory 2013 Inventory85.712. metric tons of CO2-equivalent5.416.7Leaks in the Natural Gas System are Estimated to be OneThird of Methane Emissions
  26. 26. Natural Gas and Climate Change l 22Box 3: EPA’s Methodologies for Estimating Methane Leakagefrom the Natural Gas Supply Systememissions per day will vary from one compressor to another2426Figure 17.Differences in data sources and methodologies account for the differences in estimated emissions. 27
  27. 27. Natural Gas and Climate Change l 232.1 Gas Production“completions and workovers with hydraulic fracturing”was the smallest contributor to production emissionsconsiderations in the latter include the number oftimes each year that the average well is unloaded,the average volume of gas that is entrained with theeA shale gas operation in Greene County, PA. (Nov 2010).Credit: Mark Schmerling via pound of methane vented to the atmosphere has a GWP of 25, considering a 100-yr time horizon (see Box 2). If instead the 1 lb of methanewere burned, 2.75 lbs of CO2would be produced.This amount of CO2reduces the global warming impact of the emission by a factor of 9.
  28. 28. Natural Gas and Climate Change l 24well to maintain its productivity at an acceptableworkovers during their producing life, with some wellsestimate of the number of wells that were hydraulicallyfractured and a decrease in the assumed percentage2.2 Gas Processingfto make it suitable for entry into the gas transmission29smallest contribution to methane emissions amongoccur during gas processing are the result of leaksbased on the number of compressors and enginesearlier determined the emission factors and theemission factors, and the number of compressors andthese by the ratio of gas produced in the inventory2.3 Gas Transmission and StorageThe natural gas pipeline transmission system in thefProcessing typically removes“condensates” (water and hydrocarbon liquids),“acid gases” (H2S, CO2, and others), and sometimes nitrogen. On averagethe volume of gas after processing is 7 percent or 8 percent less than before processing.Natural gas processing plant Natural gas transmisison lines
  29. 29. Natural Gas and Climate Change l 25from the transmission and storage stage come fromcompressors and engines,with only a small contributionwith the large seasonal movements of gas in and outof storage reservoirs were not considered whenmeasurements were made, and this may introduce2.4 Gas Distributiondistribution are for local pipeline distribution systemsthe main transmission pipelines and through which themost electric power plants and about half of largeindustrial customers, which are connected directly toa main transmission pipeline and account for perhapsgFigure 18. There are more than 1400 compressor stations in the U.S. natural gas transmission pipeline system. 30gIn 2012, 36 percent of all gas used for energy was used in electric power generation and 33 percent was used in industry. Assuming all of the gasused for electric power and half of the gas used by industry was delivered via transmission pipelines, then approximately half of all gas used in the U.S.was delivered to users via transmission pipeline.Natural gas meters in the distribution system.Compression Stations ExistThroughout the Natural GasTransmission System
  30. 30. Natural Gas and Climate Change l 26as it is transferred from a transmission line into aconnections in total, and it assumes no leakage occursleakage of methane is at the metering/regulatingfactor for each type of station is multiplied by theestimated number of that type of station in operationaccount for most of the rest of the estimated methaneunprotected steel, protected steel, plastic, and copperTable 5. Pipeline methane emission factors and pipelinemileage in EPA’s 2013 inventory.20hProtected steel refers to carbon steel pipes equipped with a special material coating or with cathodic protection to limit corrosion that canlead to leakage. (Cathodic protection involves the use of electrochemistry principles.)The use of cast iron and unprotected steel pipes, which aresusceptible to corrosion, is declining. Nevertheless, there are still an estimated 100,000 miles of distribution pipe made of cast iron or unprotectedsteel and more than 4.2 million unprotected steel service lines still in use.23steel pipes are assumed to have high leak rates, basedhinventory also estimates the number of miles of eachtype of pipe in the distribution system and the numberof each type of service connection to customers basedDistribution mainsCast ironUnprotected SteelPlasticProtected steelTransmission pipelinesAnnual Leak Rate Miles of Pipe239,000110,0009,9103,07033,58664,092645,102488,265
  31. 31. Natural Gas and Climate Change l 273. Other Estimates of GHGEmissions from the NaturalGas Supply Systemincluded a provision to separately calculate emissionsdevelop greenhouse gas emission estimates for naturalhave appeared, with emissionsdiversity of natural gas basin geologies, the manysteps involved in the natural gas system, the variety oftechnologies and industry practices used, and, perhapsmost importantly, the lack of measured emissionsdata, a large number of assumptions must be made toauthors come to different conclusions about thesome conclude that upstream emissions per unitenergy for shale gas are higher than for conventionalgas Many ofthe authors rely on the same two information sourcesfor many of their input assumptions,few key assumptions mainly responsible for differencesTable 6. Estimates of upstream methane and CO2emissions for conventional gas and shale gas, with comparison to EPA estimates for thenatural gas supply system as a whole.* (Emissions from gas distribution are not included here.)2Well pad constructionWell drillingHydraulic fracturing waterChemicals for hydraulic fracturingWell completionFugitive well emissionsWorkoversLiquids unloadingTransmission emissionsTotal upstream methane emissions2FlaringLease/plant energyVented at processing plantTransmission compressor fuel2emissions2UPSTREAM EMISSIONSConv1.* Methane leakage has been converted to kgCO2e using a GWP of 25. Numbers in all but the EPA column are taken fromTable SI-5 in the supplementalinformation for the paper by Weber and Calvin.49Numbers in the EPA column are my estimates based on the 2012 inventory (Table 4, but adjusted toGWP of 25) and total 2010 U.S. natural gas end-use consumption for energy.54CO2emissions in the EPA column include estimates from the EPA 2012inventory23plus emissions from complete combustion of lease and plant fuel in 2010 that I have estimated based on EIA data.550.
  32. 32. Natural Gas and Climate Change l 283.1 Leakage During Gas Production,Processing, and Transmission49encapsulateswell the diversity of estimates of upstream emissionsthat have been published relating to the gas production,and took care to normalize estimates from each studyto eliminate differences arising from inconsistentassumptions between studies, such as different valuesTable 6 shows their normalized estimates in units of2iassuming a methaneconsider their best estimate based on their analysis,including a Monte Carlo uncertainty analysis, of all ofnumbers fromTable 6,and shows estimated uncertainty2e/MJbeing markedlyrepresent the highest and lowest estimates, with the2e/MJ2emissions are due to combustion of natural gas usednumbers in Table 6 suggest that the global warming2emissions accounts for about2plus methane,Figure 19. A diversity of estimates exist in the literature for GHG emissions associated with natural gas production, processing, and delivery.This graph, from Weber and Calvin49(and consistent with numbers inTable 6, but using different sub-groupings) shows upstream emissionsin units of grams of CO2e/MJLHVof natural gas, excluding emissions associated with natural gas distribution. Ranges of uncertainty are alsoindicated. “Best” refers to Weber and Calvin’s own estimates.iThe energy content of a fuel can be expressed on the basis of its lower heating value (LHV) or its higher heating value (HHV).The difference betweenthe LHV and HHV of a fuel depends on the amount of hydrogen it contains.The heating value of a fuel is determined by burning it completely understandardized conditions and measuring the amount of heat released. Complete combustion means that all carbon in the fuel is converted to CO2andall hydrogen is converted to water vapor (H2O).The heat released as a result of these oxidation processes represents the LHV of the fuel. If the watervapor in the combustion products is condensed, additional heat is released and the sum of this and the LHV represents the HHV of the fuel. For fuelswith low hydrogen content, like coal, relatively little water vapor forms during combustion, so the difference between LHV and HHV is not especiallylarge.The high hydrogen content of methane,CH4,methane, has an HHV that is about 11 percent higher than its LHV.jCategory groupings in Figure 19 are different from those inTable 6, but overall totals are the same.Estimates of Upstream Emissions in the Natural Gas SystemVary Widely
  33. 33. Natural Gas and Climate Change l 29considered, methane would have a higher impact, and2k2emissions for themoment, it is possible to remove the complicationthe methane emissions in physical terms as a percentmethane leakage during production, processing, andtransmission,as estimated in the various studies,rangeslower and upper ends of the uncertainty ranges for thenearly as high as the upper end of the uncertaintyranges for any of the other shale gas results shown inwho estimatemThey estimated well completion emissions by assumingthat the amount of gas brought to the surface withgas handling is represented by an assumption that, on2acknowledge the uncertainties in this latter assumption,proportion of gas produced during well completions iset al.,Table 7. Upstream methane leakage (excluding leakage in distribution systems) as a percentage of methane production for the studiesshown inTable 6 and Figure 19.*kFor example, with GWP = 72 (20-year time frame), CO2emissions would be less than 15 percent of total CO2-equivalent emissions in most cases.lThe paper by Howarth, et al.17gives total estimated system leakage fractions (including leakage in distribution), of 3.6 percent to 7.9 percent. I haveestimated the range for distribution leakage, based on discussion in that paper, to be 0.35 percent to 0.9 percent and removed this from the originalHowarth et al.mO’Sullivan and Paltsev also made estimates for wells in the Fayetteville, Marcellus, and Woodford formations.ProductionProcessingTransmissionTOTALConv1.* Based onTable 6 and (for all but the EPA numbers) energy contents of produced gas per kg of contained methane reported byWeberand Calvin:49Jiang (50 MJLHV/kgCH4), NETL (48.8), Hultman (48.2), Stephenson (47.3), Burnham (48.6), Howarth (50.0), and Best(48.8).The EPA estimate assumes a gas energy content of 51.5 MJLHV/kgCH4for consistency with EPA numbers inTable 6.Conv1. NETL Hultman Stephenson Burnham Howarth Best EPAConv1.
  34. 34. Natural Gas and Climate Change l 30inventory, the emissions are more than triple this valueof the methane that might otherwise be vented orgeneral agreement that methane leakage in the gasin the entire natural gas system,a conclusion supportedby some recent measurements of the concentrationsof methane in the air above gas wells, includinga reported leakage rate of 9 percent from oil and gasdown” measurements, involve large uncertainties,but draw attention to the need for more and bettermeasurements that can help reduce the uncertainty ofvariations in overall estimates from one study toanother: i)well, ii) the well completion and workover emissionsfactor, iii)iv) the rate of fugitive emissionsat the wellhead, v) the fugitive emissions during gasprocessing, vi)Emissions that occur only once over the lifetime of ainto an estimate of emissions per unit of gas producedby dividing the estimated emission by the total gasthe shale gas industry is still young, there is a limitedhave noted thatthere is “appreciable uncertainty regarding the levelaccurately represent leakage per unit of gas productionis compounded by the large and inherent variability in62for wells in differentTable 8. Comparison of estimates for methane leakage during completion of shale gas wells in two different formations.4per well completion35.1151.34per well completion2524638Barnett formationHaynesville formation
  35. 35. Natural Gas and Climate Change l 313.2 Leakage from GasDistribution Systemsconcerned primarily with gas leakage in connectioncommercial buildings and smaller industrial facilitiesmillion service pipelines connecting the mains to users,stations found at the interface of transmission andnumber of leakage measurements that have been madesuggest that there could be large uncertainties in theleaky steel or plastic in recent decades, but there areconservatively estimated an average annual leak ratenbeing pursued to try to improve estimates of leakagepatterns and other variables to try to estimate whatconcentrations above urban streets in Boston,6466The growing use of natural gas for power generationin place of coal makes it particularly important tounderstand methane leakage and its global warmingothers with varying conclusions due in largecertainty about actual methane leakage rates, it isespecially informative to understand the prospectiveglobal warming impact of different overall leakage rates4. Natural Gas vs. Coal inElectricity GenerationnComgas subsequently implemented an effort to place plastic inserts in their cast-iron distribution mains to reduce leakage.The extent to which suchsealing robot) that add sealant to jute-packed joints by self-navigating through distribution mains, thereby reducing the need for more costly excavationto repair or replace pipes.65,63
  36. 36. Natural Gas and Climate Change l 32othe contribution from methane leakage correspondingpGreen represents2gas used as fuel at gas processing plants and in the gas2that originatedunderground and was removed from the natural gasThe left and right graphs include the same physicalleakage the choice of time horizon affects the global2impact of leakage approach the level of combustionimpact of methane leakage is triple the impact fromGoing a step further, we can calculate emissionsearlier,natural gas contains much less carbon per unit of67RepresentativeoAssuming complete combustion of natural gas containing 14 kg of carbon per GJHHV.This corresponds to an assumed natural gas composition byvolume of 97.01percent methane, 1.76 percent ethane, 0.47 percent nitrogen, 0.38 percent CO2, 0.26 percent propane, and 0.11 percent n-butaneand an elemental composition by weight of 74.0 percent C, 24.4 percent H, 0.8 percent N, and 0.7 percent O.The average molecular weight is 16.57g/mol, and the LHV and HHV are 47.76 MJ/kg and 52.97 MJ/kg, respectively.pThe methane leakage (in kgCO2e/GJHHV) as a function of the percentage of production leaked is calculated, using the natural gas characteristics infootnote o, as follows: = GWP * * 14 * *qUpstream CO2emissions include those reported by the EPA for the natural gas system23plus emissions from combustion of “lease and plant fuel”(which EPA excludes from its inventory for the natural gas system to avoid double counting). Lease and plant fuel emissions are estimated by assumingcomplete combustion of lease and plant fuel energy used in 2010 as reported by the Energy Information Administration.54Figure 20. Estimates of greenhouse gas emissions from natural gas production, processing, delivery, and end-use for different assumed ratesof upstream methane leakage.kgCO2eGJHHV% leaked100kgCGJHHV16gCH4molC1molC12gCEven Small Methane Leaks Can Have a Large Global Warming Impact in the ShortTerm
  37. 37. Natural Gas and Climate Change l 33Figure 21. Estimates of greenhouse gas emissions from electricity production from natural gas for different assumed rates of upstreamrrBased on emissions shown in Figure 20 and power plant fuel consumption of 7172 GJHHV/kWh a natural gas combined cycle (corresponding to6711736 GJHHV67and 10019 GJHHV/kWh for a68Upstream CO2emissions for the subcritical and supercritical coal plants are 8.34 kg/MWh and 7.48kg/MWh, respectively, and upstream methane emissions are 3.20 kgCH4/MWh and 2.76 kgCH4/MWh, respectively.68,69Bitumous coalpower plantsNatural gas combined cycle power plants with varyingupstream methane leakage (% of produced methane)Bitumous coalpower plantsNatural gas combined cycle power plants with varyingupstream methane leakage (% of produced methane)With Methane Leakage Natural Gas Power Generation Can Have a Similar or HigherGlobal Warming Impact as Coal Power Generation
  38. 38. Natural Gas and Climate Change l 3469estimates of the “upstream” emissions associated withcoal electricity, including estimated methane emissionsemissions for a kwh of electricity from a natural gaskwh still has a lower global warming impact than theabout 2 percent for the natural gas kwh to have halfis no better for the climate than the kwh from anin comparing the global warming impact of electricityet al. have proposed amethod for assessing the climate impact of a switchdependent global warming potential of technology2,this method yields a ratio,for anytime horizon of interest, that represents the relativeglobal warming potential of switching from technologyFigure 22. Global warming impact of shifting electricity generation from a coal power plant to a natural gas power plant in year zero andcontinuing that generation from gas each year thereafter, assuming different methane leakage rates in the natural gas system. Natural gas isfriendlier for the climate for values less than 1.0. ssAssumed heat rates for electricity generation are 7172 kJHHV/kWh (6798 BTU/kWh) for NGCC and 10550 kJHHV/kWh (10000 BTU/kWh) for existingcoal plants. Upstream emissions for coal are as described for subcritical coal in footnote r.Upstream methane leaked(% of production){
  39. 39. Natural Gas and Climate Change l 35horizon due to the different atmospheric lifetimes of2et al.with our leakage assumptions, Figure 22 shows theglobal warming impact of replacing the electricity fromand then maintaining that natural gas generation forfor different assumed total methane leakage ratesNGCC electricity has half as much global warmingMany authors have suggested that switching fromcoal to gas electricity halves the global warming impactswitch to gas would still be better for the climate thancoal over any time period considered, although barelyFigure 22 represents the impact of shifting onepower plant worth of electricity generation from coalbe the global warming impact of shifting over time theto know that the average rate at which coal electricitypercentage rate of reduction has been rising in recentbeen predominantly replaced by increased generationfrom gas plus coal grew an average of less than half ofet al.toelectricity generated from coal and a correspondingincrease in electricity generated from gas,twith totalelectricity production from coal plus gas remaining theuprospective global warming impact of switching fromcoal to natural gas electricity at different annual ratesenough time horizon, all of the cases will approach thereached more slowly when coal replacement occurspercent reduction in warming potential is achieved bytFor a constant annual percentage conversion of coal electricity to gas electricity, the fraction of original coal electricity converted to gas each year is[r * (1 - r)(t-1)] where r is the annual percentage reduction in coal electricity and t is the number of years from the start of the conversion process.(Conversion begins in year t = 1.)uet al.18(Equation 2 in their paper, with L/Lref= 1) is used here to calculate the reductionin Global Warming Potential from substituting a unit amount of coal-generated electricity with gas-generated electricity in a given year and continuing toproduce that unit amount of electricity from gas in subsequent years.(Figure 22 shows the result of this calculation.)When the amount of electricity madefrom natural gas is not constant every year but increases year to year (as coal electricity generation decrseases year to year) the climate impact of eachnew annual increment of gas electricity is assessed using theTWP.Then, the climate impact of the electricity generated from coal and gas in total in anyyear is the sum of climate impacts caused that year by each new increment of gas-generated electricity added from the start of the counting period upto that year plus the impact of the reduced amount of coal-generated electricity being produced in that year. Mathematically, the climate impact in totalfrom the start of a shift from coal to gas over some number of years, N, is calculated as: [r (1 - r)(t-1)*TWP(N + 1 - t)]dt + {1 - SNt=1[r (1 - r)(t-1)]dt}where r is the annual percentage reduction in coal electricity and TWP(N + 1 - t) is given by Equation 2 in Alvarez et al.Nt=1Nt=1N
  40. 40. Natural Gas and Climate Change l 36Figure 23.annual rates. In all cases the assumed methane leakage is 2 percent of production.gas replaces coal ataverage % per year>>>>2% methane leakage rateTable 9. U.S. coal and natural gas electricity generation 2002-2012 (left)6and annual percentage reduction in coal electricity generationwhen averaged over different time periods (right).20022003200420052006200720082009201020112012Coal1,933,1301,973,7371,978,3012,012,8731,990,5112,016,4561,985,8011,755,9041,847,2901,733,4301,517,203Natural Gas691,006649,908710,100760,960816,441896,590882,981920,979987,6971,013,6891,230,708Coal + Gas2,624,1362,623,6452,688,4012,773,8332,806,9522,913,0462,868,7822,676,8832,834,9872,747,1192,747,9112002 - 20122003 - 20122004 - 20122005 - 20122006 - 20122007 - 20122008 - 20122009 - 20122010 - 20122011 -2012-2.4 percent2.9 percent3.3 percent4.0 percent4.4 percent5.5 percent6.5 percent4.8 percent9.4 percent12.5 percent-Reduction inCoal Electricity
  41. 41. Natural Gas and Climate Change l 37Figure 24.annual rates. In all cases the assumed methane leakage is 5 percent of production.Figure 25.annual rates. In all cases the assumed methane leakage is 8 percent of production.gas replaces coal ataverage % per year>>>>5% methane leakage rategas replaces coal ataverage % per year>>>>8% methane leakage rate
  42. 42. Natural Gas and Climate Change l 38The same analysis can be carried out for a differentleakage, the impact of switching from coal to gas is not6 percent, there would initially be negative impacts ofFigure 26. Additional gas required each year (compared to preceding year) under different scenarios. The solid lines represent the new gasin 2012 was 1517TWh. Gas generation that replaces coal is assumed to require 7,172 kJ of gas per kWh generated, corresponding to aheat rate of 6,798 BTU/kWh.)The black line is the new gas supply (for all gas uses) projected by the Energy Information Administration in its2013 Annual Energy Outlook (Early Release) Reference Scenario.7(There are approximately 1.1 EJ per trillion cubic feet (TCF) of gas.)these graphs,then the amount of additional gas supplies
  43. 43. Natural Gas and Climate Change l 39warming impact from substituting gas for coal out toelectricity consumption and/or increased electricitysupply from nuclear, wind, solar, or fossil fuel systems2capture and storage to provide some of theThis analysis considered no change in leakage rate orincrease if leakage were reduced and/or natural gas
  44. 44. Natural Gas and Climate Change l 40References(1) Rogner, H. (Convening Lead Author), et al. (2012), “Energy Resources and Potentials,” chapter 7 in TheGlobal Energy Assessment, Johansson, et al. (eds.), Cambridge University Press.(2) BP (2012). Statistical Review of World Energy, U.S. Energy Information Administration (2012). Annual Energy Review, U.S. Dept. of Energy, September, Ground Water Protection Council and ALL Consulting (2009). Modern Shale Gas TechnologyDevelopment in the United States: A Primer, National Energy Technology Laboratory, April.(5) U.S. Energy Information Administration, U.S. Natural Gas Develeopment Wells Drilled (count), U.S.Department of Energy, 2012, U.S. Energy Information Administration, Electric Power Monthly, U.S. Department of Energy, February2013, Energy Information Administration (2012). Annual Energy Outlook 2013, Early Release, U.S. Dept. ofEnergy, December, Harrison, M.R., Shires, T.M., Wessels, J.K., and Cowgill, R.M. (1997). “Methane Emissions from theNatural Gas Industry,” Project Summary, EPA/600/SR-96/080, EPA, June.(9) U.S. Energy Information Administration, U.S. Energy Information Administration, U.S. Energy Information Administration, U.S. Energy Information Administration, U.S. Geological Survey (August 2012). U.S. Energy Information Administration (2013). Natural Gas Annual, Forster, P., V. Ramaswamy, P. Artaxo, T. Berntsen, R. Betts, D.W. Fahey, J. Haywood, J. Lean, D.C.Lowe, G. Myhre, J. Nganga, R. Prinn, G. Raga, M. Schulz and R. Van Dorland (2007). “Changes inAtmospheric Constituents and in Radiative Forcing”. In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical ScienceBasis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel onClimate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor andH.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.(16) Shindell, D.T., G. Faluvegi, D.M. Koch, G.A. Schmidt, N. Unger, and S.E. Bauer (2009). “ImprovedAttribution of Climate Forcing to Emissions,” Science, 326(30 Oct): 716-718.(17) Howarth, R.W., R. Santoro, and A. Ingraffea (2011). “Methane and the greenhouse-gas footprint ofnatural gas from shale formations: a letter,” Climatic Change, 106:679–690.
  45. 45. Natural Gas and Climate Change l 41(18) Alvarez, R.A., S.W. Pacala, J.J. Winebrake, W.L. Chameides, and S.P. Hamburg (2012). “Greater focusneeded on methane leakage from natural gas infrastructure,” PNAS, 109(17): 6435-6440. See also theonline supporting information accompanying the article.(19) EPA (2013). Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2011, EnvironmentalProtection Agency, Washington, DC, April 12. EPA (2012). Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2010, 430-R-12-001,Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, April.(22) Taken from presentations by EPA staff at the “Stakeholder Workshop on Natural Gas in the Inventoryof U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks,” September 13, 2012. EPA (2012). “Methodology for Estimating CH4 and CO2 Emissions from Natural Gas Systems,” Section3.4 of Annex 3 of the Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2010, 430-R-12-001, Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, April. Innovative Environmental Solutions (2009). “Field Measurement Program to Improve Uncertainties forKey Greenhouse Gas Emission Factors for Distribution Sources,” Project No. 20497, Gas TechnologyInstitute, Des Plaines, IL, Nov. 2009.(25) EPA/GRI (1996). Methane Emissions from the Natural Gas Industry. Harrison, M., T. Shires, J. Wessels,and R. Cowgill (eds.), 15 volumes, Radian International LLC for National Risk Management ResearchLaboratory, Air Pollution Prevention and Control Division, Research Triangle Park, NC. EPA-600/R-96-080a. Available at EPA website: EPA, Gas Star Program: Numbers are from tables in Annex 3 of the EPA GHG Emissions Inventories published in 2009, 2010,2011, 2012, and the 2013 inventory.(28) Waltzer, S. (2012). “Liquids Unloading,” presentation at the ‘Stakeholder Workshop on Natural Gas inthe Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks,’ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 13Sept, Wash. D.C.(29) U.S. Energy Information Administration, U.S. Energy Information Administration (2008). “Distribution of Natural Gas: The Final Step in theTransmission Process,” June. Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Association, U.S. Department of Transportation. Skone, T.J., J. Littlefield, and J. Marriot, “Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Inventory of Natural GasExtraction, Delivery and Electricity Production,” DOE/NETL-2011/1522, National Energy TechnologyLaboratory, October.(34) Broderick, J., Anderson, K., Wood, R., Gilbert, P., Sharmina, M., Footitt, A., Glynn, S., and Nicholls, F.(2011). “Shale gas: an updated assessment of environmental and climate change impacts,” The TyndallCentre, University of Manchester, UK, November.
  46. 46. Natural Gas and Climate Change l 42(35) Clark, C., A. Burnham, C. Harto, and R. Horner (2012). “Hydraulic Fracturing and Shale GasProduction: Technology, Impacts, and Policy,” Argonne National Laboratory, September 10.(36) Forster, D. and J. Perks (2012). “Climate impact of potential shale gas production in the EU,” Report tothe European Commission DG CLIMA, July 30.(37) Howarth, R., D. Shindell, R. Santoro, A. Ingraffea, N. Phillips, and A. Townsend-Small (2012),“Methane Emissions from Natural Gas Systems,” Background paper prepared for the National ClimateAssessment, Reference number 2011-0003, February.(38) Ritter, K. (API), A. Emmert, M. Lev‐On, and T. Shires (2012), “Understanding Greenhouse GasEmissions from Unconventional Natural Gas Production,” 20th International Emissions InventoryConference, August, Tampa, FL.(39) Santoro, R.L., R.H. Howarth, and A.R. Ingraffea (2011). “Indirect Emissions of Carbon Dioxide fromMarcellus Shale Gas Development,” A Technical Report from the Agriculture, Energy, & EnvironmentProgram at Cornell University, June.(40) Hughes, J.D. (2011). “Lifecycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Shale Gas Compared to Coal: AnAnalysis of Two Conflicting Studies,” Post-Carbon Institute, July.(41) Fulton, M., Mellquist, N., Kitasei, S., and Bluestein, J. (2011). “Comparing Life-Cycle Greenhouse GasEmissions from Natural Gas and Coal,” Deutsche Bank Group Climate Change Advisors, August 25.(42) Lechtenböhmer, S., Altmann, M., Capito, S., Matra, Z., Weindrorf, W., and Zittel, W. (2011). “Impacts ofShale Gas and Shale Oil Extraction on the Environment and on Human Health,” IP/A/ENVI/ST/2011-07,prepared for the European Parliament’s Committee on Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, June.(43) Burnham, A., J. Han, C.E. Clark, M. Wang, J.B. Dunn, and I. Palou-Rivera (2012). “Life-CycleGreenhouse Gas Emissions of Shale Gas, Natural Gas, Coal, and Petroleum,” Environmental Science andTechnology, 46, 619–627.(44) Cathles III, L.M., L. Brown, and M. Taam, and A. Hunter (2012). “A commentary on ‘The greenhouse-gas footprint of natural gas in shale formations’ by R.W. Howarth, R. Santoro, and Anthony Ingraffea,”Climatic Change, 113:525–535.(45) Howarth, R.W., R. Santoro, and A. Ingraffea (2012). “Venting and leaking of methane from shale gasdevelopment: response to Cathles et al.,” Climatic Change, 113:537-549.(46) Hultman, N., D. Rebois, M. Scholten, and C. Ramig (2011). “The greenhouse impact of unconventionalgas for electricity generation,” Environmental Research Letters, Vol. 6.(47) Jiang, M., W.M. Griffin, C. Hendrickson, P. Jaramillo, J. Van Briesen, and A. Venkatesh (2011). “Lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions of Marcellus shale gas,” Environmental Research Letters, Vol. 6.(48) Stephenson, T., J.E. Valle, and X. Riera-Palou (2011), “Modeling the Relative GHG Emissions ofConventional and Shale Gas Production,” Environmental Science and Technology, 45: 10757–10764.(49)Weber, C.L. and C. Clavin (2012). “Life Cycle Carbon Footprint of Shale Gas: Review of Evidence andImplications,” Environmental Science and Technology, 46: 5688-5695.(50) O’Sullivan, F. and Paltsev, S. (2012). “Shale gas production: potential versus actual greenhouse gasemissions,” Environmental Research Letters, Vol. 7.
  47. 47. Natural Gas and Climate Change l 43(51) Laurenzi, I.J. and Jersey, G.R. (2013). “Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions and FreshwaterConsumption of Marcellus Shale Gas,” Environmental Science and Technology, published online, 2 April.(52) EPA, (2010). Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reporting from the Petroleum and Natural Gas Industry:Background Technical Support Document, Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.(53) API (2009). Compendium of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Methodologies for the Oil and Natural GasIndustry, American Petroleum Institute, Washington, DC.(54) U.S. Energy Information Administration, U.S. Energy Information Administration, Caulton, D., Shepson, P., Cambaliza, M., Sparks, J., Santoro, R., Sweeney, C., Davis, K., Lauvaus, T.,Howarth, R., Stirm, B., Sarmiento, D. and Belmecheri, S. (2012). “Quantifying Methane Emissions fromShale Gas Wells in Pennsylvania,” A21J-03, Annual Meeting of the American Geophysical Union, SanFrancisco, December.(57) Karion, A., Sweeney, C., Petron, G., Frost, G., Trainer, M., Brewer, A., Hardesty, R., Conley, S., Wolter,S., Newberger, T., Kofler, J., and Tans, P. (2012). “Estimate of methane emissions from oil and gasoperations in the Uintah Basin using airborne measurements and Lidar wind data,” A21J-01, AnnualMeeting of the American Geophysical Union, San Francisco, December.(58) Petron, G., et al. (2012). “Hydrocarbon emissions characterization in the Colorado Front Range: A pilotstudy,” Journal of Geophysical Research, 117(D04304).(59) Tollefson, J. (2013). “Methane leaks erode green credentials of natural gas,” Nature 493(7430), January 2.(60) Peischl, J., Ryerson, T.B., Brioude, J., Aikin, K.C., Andrews, A.E., Atlas, E., Blake, D., Daube, B.C., deGouw, J.A., Dlugokencky, E., Frost, G.J., Gentner, D.R., Gilman, J.B., Goldstein, A.H., Harley, R.A.,Holloway, J.S., Kofler, J., Kuster, W.C., Lang, P.M., Novelli, P.C., Santoni, G.W., Trainer, M., Wofsy, S.C.,and Parrish, D.D. (2013). “Quantifying sources of methane using light alkanes in the Los Angeles basin,California, Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, DOI: 10.1002/jgrd.50413 (accepted online) 17April.(61) Hamburg, S., “Measuring fugitive methane emissions from fracking,” Ecowatch, January 4, 2013. Oil and Gas Assessment Team (2012). “Variability of Distributions of Well-Scale Estimated UltimateRecovery for Continuous (Unconventional) Oil and Gas Resources in the United States,” Open-FileReport 2012-1118, U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, DC.(63) Bylin, C., L. Cassab, A. Cazarini, D. Ori, D. Robinson, and D. Sechler (2009). “New Measurement Datahas Implications for Quantifying Natural Gas Losses from Cast Iron Distribution Mains,” Pipeline andGas Journal, 236(9): Sept.(64) Phillips, N.G., R. Ackley, E.R. Crosson, A. Down, L.R. Hutyra, M. Brondfield, J.D. Karr, K. Zhao, andR.B. Jackson (2013). “Mapping urban pipeline leaks: Methane leaks across Boston,” EnvironmentalPollution, 173: 1-4.(65) McKenna, P. (2011). “Methane leaks foil clean gas future,” New Scientist, 9 July.(66) Wennberg., P.O., Mui, W., Wunch, D., Kort, E.A., Blake, D.R., Atlas, E.L., Santoni, G.W., Wofsy,S.C., Diskin, G.S., Jeong, S., and Fisher, M.L. (2012). “On the Sources of Methane to the Los AngelesAtmosphere,” Environmental Science and Technology, 46: 9282-9289.
  48. 48. Natural Gas and Climate Change l 44(67) National Energy Technology Laboratory (2010). Cost and Performance Baseline for Fossil Energy PlantsVolume 1: Bituminous Coal and Natural Gas to Electricity, (Revision 2), DOE/NETL-2010/1397, NETL,November.(68) Skone, T. and James, R. (2010). Life Cycle Analysis: Existing Pulverized Coal (EXPC) Power Plant,DOE/NETL-403-110809, National Energy Technology Laboratory, September 30.(69) Skone, T. and James, R. (2010). Life Cycle Analysis: Supercritical Pulverized Coal (SCPC) Power Plant,DOE/NETL-403-110609, National Energy Technology Laboratory, September 30.
  49. 49. This page intentionally blank
  50. 50. PrincetonOne Palmer Square, Suite 330Princeton, NJ 08542Phone: +1 609 924-3800Call Toll Free+1 877 4-CLI-SCI (877 425-4724)